Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Claim. Przemek Chojecki's post of 16 April 2026 in the discussion thread of Problem 326 links a short note with a counterexample that the post credits to GPT-5.4. The erdosproblems.com wording then asked Erdős and Graham's "another way of stating the problem": does every basis of order have a subset which is also a basis and for which does not exist? The note answers no. Its basis is the set of natural numbers whose ternary digits are all or , a basis of order since the sum of two such numbers can have any ternary digit, and every sub-basis of it has , so the limit exists for every sub-basis.
Submission note. Posted to the erdosproblems.com forum by Przemek Chojecki on 16 April 2026:
Looks like this is false. A counterexample given by GPT-5.4 is
Thus is the set of natural numbers whose ternary digits are all 0 or 1 (alternatively exclude 0 depending on the convention). Here's a short note with a proof that this is indeed a counterexample
Why it is rejected. It answers a variant, not the Statement. The note
answers erdosproblems.com's earlier wording, in which a limit of
counts as a limit. The erdosproblems.com curator replied the same day that the
limit was meant to be a constant , since otherwise there are easy
counterexamples such as this one, and rewrote the problem as Erdős and Graham's
minimal-basis question, the Statement of
Problem 326: is there a minimal basis
of order with for some ? A basis whose sub-bases
all have has no such sub-basis and says nothing about minimal
bases with a nonzero limit, so its mathematics answers the variant and does
not settle this problem; the value disproved is its answer to that variant.
Standing. Rejected, as answering a variant. The note is unrefereed, the thread records no review of it, and this corpus has not checked it.
Depends on. No page of this wiki.